Globe Trot: Sense and nonsense on Syria

For all the week’s nonsense on Syria,here’s some sense: “The administration has cited the need to deter and prevent use of chemical weapons—a defensible goal, though Syrians have suffered from far deadlier mass atrocities during the course of the conflict.”

A chemical weapon never dies. Given that the United States knew last spring that both sides were making moves to arm themselves with chemical weapons, why did it not launch “limited strikes” then, to prevent an actual attack?

Christian leadership around the world is galvanizing in opposition to U.S. military action, and Syrian Christian leaders don’t want Syrian intervention either:

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

“Those Christians may be no fans of the regime of President Bashar Assad, but they generally prefer it to what they see as the likely alternative—rising Islamic fundamentalism and Iraq-style chaos, in which religious minorities such as themselves would be among the primary victims.”

‘We must say that, what the U.S. did in Iraq, we don’t want repeated in Syria,’ Audo said.”

The debate taking place in the United States this week over U.S. intervention in Syriahas virtually ignored the impact an American campaign would have on Syria’s Christians.

On Wednesday, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan wrote to President Barack Obama, urging him to shun military options, saying an attack “will be counterproductive, will exacerbate an already deadly situation, and will have unintended negative consequences.”